• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump judge nominee, 36, who has never tried a case, wins approval of Senate panel

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,313
Reaction score
82,703
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump judge nominee, 36, who has never tried a case, wins approval of Senate panel

By David G. Savage
November 10, 2017

160505232345-brett-talley-large-169.jpg

Lawyer Brett J. Talley of Alabama

Brett J. Talley, President Trump’s nominee to be a federal judge in Alabama, has never tried a case, was unanimously rated “not qualified” by the American Bar Assn.’s judicial rating committee, has practiced law for only three years and, as a blogger last year, displayed a degree of partisanship unusual for a judicial nominee, denouncing “Hillary Rotten Clinton” and pledging support for the National Rifle Assn. On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee, on a party-line vote, approved him for a lifetime appointment to the federal bench. “He’s practiced law for less than three years and never argued a motion, let alone brought a case. This is the least amount of experience I’ve seen in a judicial nominee,” said Kristine Lucius, executive vice president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

Talley does have some other qualifications, some traditional, others less so. And, like many people who eventually became federal judges, he became the protege of someone who became a senator. In Talley’s case, the mentor was Republican Sen. Luther Strange, the former Alabama state attorney general who was appointed to the Senate in January to replace Jeff Sessions, who left the Senate to become U.S. attorney general. Talley worked for Strange as a deputy. Typically, senators play the lead role in recommending nominees for the federal district judgeship's in their state. Talley also had something of an inside track. This year, when Sessions moved to the attorney general’s post, Talley took a job in the Justice Department’s office that selects judicial nominees.
Click to expand...

A newbie lawyer with no trial experience at all is rewarded with a lifetime federal judgeship by Republicans for having friends in high places and outspoken political biases.

The Trump swamp just got a bit deeper.
 
Alabama has always been and for a very long time will remain a crap hole and as such people like this douche bag and Roy Moor follow in the steps of Sessions and many others.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Trump judge nominee, 36, who has never tried a case, wins approval of Senate panel



A newbie lawyer with no trial experience at all is rewarded with a lifetime federal judgeship by Republicans for having friends in high places and outspoken political biases.

The Trump swamp just got a bit deeper.
Click to expand...

This would be a huge story if people were no longer aware that when Trump said he'd get "the best" people for the job, he meant "the most subservient to me." Trump's supporters don't care, their hatred toward anybody critical of Trump is their main drive. Even White House aides who will talk clearly state that we have a President who has no regard for reason. It's a little scary to have a sociopath in the White House, but that part undoubtedly has precent. The complete incompetence combined with the sociopathic nature of this man might be unique.
 
Just think how many rulings will be overturned on appeals and at what cost if this asshole is confirmed.
 
Mustachio said:
This would be a huge story if people were no longer aware that when Trump said he'd get "the best" people for the job, he meant "the most subservient to me." Trump's supporters don't care, their hatred toward anybody critical of Trump is their main drive. Even White House aides who will talk clearly state that we have a President who has no regard for reason. It's a little scary to have a sociopath in the White House, but that part undoubtedly has precent. The complete incompetence combined with the sociopathic nature of this man might be unique.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
Rogue Valley said:
A newbie lawyer with no trial experience at all is rewarded with a lifetime federal judgeship by Republicans for having friends in high places and outspoken political biases.

The Trump swamp just got a bit deeper.
Click to expand...

Weeell...you do know that every person who becomes a judge was not born a judge, right?

Each one was either elected or appointed to the position originally. They all had to start somewhere. :shrug:

There is no requirement that an appointee to the position of Federal Judge have had prior experience as one, just as there is no requirement for those first elected or appointed to other State and Local judicial positions.

Just saying... :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
Weeell...you do know that every person who becomes a judge was not born a judge, right? Each one was either elected or appointed to the position originally. They all had to start somewhere. :shrug:

There is no requirement that an appointee to the position of Federal Judge have had prior experience as one, just as there is no requirement for those first elected or appointed to other State and Local judicial positions.

Just saying... :coffeepap:
Click to expand...
I wonder if you would apply the same criteria to a surgeon who will operate on you.
 
prometeus said:
I wonder if you would apply the same criteria to a surgeon who will operate on you.
Click to expand...

Hmm...most of us in the common herd don't usually get to "pick" our surgeons.

We are restricted to those we can afford (or our insurance can pay for).

Otherwise, we get sick, the hospital says we need an operation...and they introduce us to our surgeons. Your point?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Weeell...you do know that every person who becomes a judge was not born a judge, right?

Each one was either elected or appointed to the position originally. They all had to start somewhere. :shrug:

There is no requirement that an appointee to the position of Federal Judge have had prior experience as one, just as there is no requirement for those first elected or appointed to other State and Local judicial positions.

Just saying... :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Well, there is no requirement that they have any level of competence whatsoever. But should such people be appointed?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Weeell...you do know that every person who becomes a judge was not born a judge, right? Each one was either elected or appointed to the position originally.

There is no requirement that an appointee to the position of Federal Judge have had prior experience as one, just as there is no requirement for those first elected or appointed to other State and Local judicial positions.

Just saying... :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

Ah. I think I see what you're doing here: defending the indefensible.

Look, if Obama or any other Democrat had make the same kind of nomination, the Right would have raised hell...and rightly so. And so would I. But Trump has made a habit of nominating people who are wholly unqualified for the position (like Ben Carson to lead HUD, as one example among many). It strongly appears his only requirement is loyalty - not to America, but to him. It is truly beneath you - or any thinking man - to defend his actions.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
Well, there is no requirement that they have any level of competence whatsoever. But should such people be appointed?
Click to expand...

I don't see why not.

Like any other court, the newbee is going to be monitored and schooled by the other judges in the division with greater experience.

He is also subject to appellate review and if he makes a poor decision it can be rectified at the next level, and he learns from experience.

Finally, he is subject to review and if his performance is sub-par or violates ethical conduct he can be removed.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Ah. I think I see what you're doing here: defending the indefensible.

Look, if Obama or any other Democrat had make the same kind of nomination, the Right would have raised hell...and rightly so. And so would I. But Trump has made a habit of nominating people who are wholly unqualified for the position (like Ben Carson to lead HUD, as one example among many). It strongly appears his only requirement is loyalty - not to America, but to him. It is truly beneath you - or any thinking man - to defend his actions.
Click to expand...

What the "Right" does or does not do is not my concern.

You are entitled to your "opinion" of what is or is not beneath someone else, but I am not subject to the whims of your judgement. :shrug:

I am simply pointing out that this appointment is well within the authority of the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
 
I don't see what the problem is here. He's qualified.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...most of us in the common herd don't usually get to "pick" our surgeons.
Click to expand...
Of course you do at least to a certain level, but I am sure that you would not accept say a podiatrist to take out your appendix, but nice try at deflection.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Like any other court, the newbee is going to be monitored and schooled by the other judges in the division with greater experience.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Like the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama Judge Roy Moore?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Weeell...you do know that every person who becomes a judge was not born a judge, right?

Each one was either elected or appointed to the position originally. They all had to start somewhere. :shrug:

There is no requirement that an appointee to the position of Federal Judge have had prior experience as one, just as there is no requirement for those first elected or appointed to other State and Local judicial positions.

Just saying... :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

There's one way to advocate for no standards.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...most of us in the common herd don't usually get to "pick" our surgeons.

We are restricted to those we can afford (or our insurance can pay for).

Otherwise, we get sick, the hospital says we need an operation...and they introduce us to our surgeons. Your point?
Click to expand...

If the person is an intern who has never operated on a patient, you really can refuse to let them operate on you.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Weeell...you do know that every person who becomes a judge was not born a judge, right?

Each one was either elected or appointed to the position originally. They all had to start somewhere. :shrug:

There is no requirement that an appointee to the position of Federal Judge have had prior experience as one, just as there is no requirement for those first elected or appointed to other State and Local judicial positions.

Just saying... :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

So Federal District Court is like training wheels?

I agree that the only hard-and-fast qualification for a judgeship is to be breathing but you have to admit that this guy's resume is awfully thin.

At least he's *just* a district court where his ability to do stupid crap is somewhat limited and subject to review by people who are hopefully a little more experienced.
 
Mustachio said:
This would be a huge story if people were no longer aware that when Trump said he'd get "the best" people for the job, he meant "the most subservient to me." Trump's supporters don't care, their hatred toward anybody critical of Trump is their main drive. Even White House aides who will talk clearly state that we have a President who has no regard for reason. It's a little scary to have a sociopath in the White House, but that part undoubtedly has precent. The complete incompetence combined with the sociopathic nature of this man might be unique.
Click to expand...

This minority rule in America will come to end and rather quickly....
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...most of us in the common herd don't usually get to "pick" our surgeons.

We are restricted to those we can afford (or our insurance can pay for).

Otherwise, we get sick, the hospital says we need an operation...and they introduce us to our surgeons. Your point?
Click to expand...

Most people have the ability to reject a surgeon. Are you always such a good lemming and do exactly what you're told?
 
Captain Adverse said:
What the "Right" does or does not do is not my concern.

You are entitled to your "opinion" of what is or is not beneath someone else, but I am not subject to the whims of your judgement. :shrug:

I am simply pointing out that this appointment is well within the authority of the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Click to expand...

And "legal" is not the same thing as "good", "right", "sensible", or "patriotic".
 
prometeus said:
Of course you do at least to a certain level, but I am sure that you would not accept say a podiatrist to take out your appendix, but nice try at deflection.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are the one deflecting via use of a false analogy.

A "foot doctor" is not going to be taking out your appendix, unless of course you are dying of it in the middle of a traffic jam and he is the closest doctor trying to save your life on-site. I doubt you would reject a "podiatrist" at that point in time either. :roll:

Rogue Valley said:
Uh huh. Like the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama Judge Roy Moore?
Click to expand...

Red Herring. Thanks for playing :roll:

radcen said:
There's one way to advocate for no standards.
Click to expand...

No, it is the simple truth. You can take it any way you wish. :shrug:

Angelus said:
If the person is an intern who has never operated on a patient, you really can refuse to let them operate on you.
Click to expand...

An Internist will be operating under the supervision of a skilled supervising doctor, and this information will be presented to you at the time the operation is being discussed. You can refuse.

Of course, if you are unconscious and dying, then depending on the circumstances and the critical nature of your problem, it is more likely than not an attending or on-call physician will be assigned to either conduct it or supervise the internist.

Gaius46 said:
So Federal District Court is like training wheels?

I agree that the only hard-and-fast qualification for a judgeship is to be breathing but you have to admit that this guy's resume is awfully thin.

At least he's *just* a district court where his ability to do stupid crap is somewhat limited and subject to review by people who are hopefully a little more experienced.
Click to expand...

I agree, with both the resume point and the bolded part. But you know as well as I that politics plays a role in many appointments at all levels of government. What can you do?

radcen said:
Most people have the ability to reject a surgeon. Are you always such a good lemming and do exactly what you're told?
Click to expand...

Straw man. Tsk tsk. When you get the right to reject a judicial appointment feel free to let us know. Meanwhile, my points on that issue remain factually valid. :coffeepap:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom